Re: Re: profiles/base/make.defaults: add XDG_DATA_DIRS & XDG_CONFIG_DIRS to ENV_UNSET

El sáb, 09-11-2024 a las 09:23 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> El mar, 06-08-2024 a las 13:27 -0400, Mike Gilbert escribió:
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 2:57 PM Pacho Ramos <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > This is a follow up from an older thread by leio in the mailing
> > > list:
> > > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/bf36c4c50f9c15db222faa6a66b0c6c9
> > > 
> > > The problem is that, at present time, we are getting more and
> > > more
> > > bugs
> > > coming from flatpak users that get build failures due to having
> > > those
> > > variables "polluted".
> > > 
> > > Personally, I would opt for unsetting them too and properly set
> > > them to
> > > known values for packages needing it. But I am unsure if we could
> > > probably do a tinderbox run to find&fix packages needing them to
> > > be
> > > set
> > > :-/
> > 
> > I'm not really familiar with the packages that require these
> > variables. I agree with the idea in principle though.
> > 
> > It seems like x11-libs/gtk+ is one example given by leio. How would
> > we
> > fix that one? Can the same strategy be applied to similar ebuilds?
> > 
> > Another possible idea would be to source /etc/profile.env in a
> > subshell and pick out the relevant XDG variables in
> > xdg_environment_reset.
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I have locally tried to append XDG_DATA_DIRS & XDG_CONFIG_DIRS to
> ENV_UNSET and x11-libs/gtk+-3.24.42-r1 looks to compile properly.
> 
> I would then try to do a tinderbox run with they unset, if few
> packages
> are affected, we can set them to their expected values in relevant
> ebuilds. If there are many, maybe we can try to rely on
> xdg_environment_reset for more standardization.
> 
> Regards

Hello,

It has been a long time since Toralf starting unsetting XDG_DATA_DIRS &
XDG_CONFIG_DIRS variables for testing them with his tinderbox and no
problems appeared. I think that we can finally unset them (and solve
bugs like https://bugs.gentoo.org/868657 due to flatpak setting them to
unexpected values).

Best regards

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQFPBAABCAA5FiEE808Ng0g83FMNupoifLEMIH/AfbwFAmoSswYbFIAAAAAABAAO
bWFudTIsMi41KzEuMTIsMiwyAAoJEHyxDCB/wH286ZgIANDLr3cmukPefKJVxPH1
mRvoYOP1NFNgrHlBEUMOO2eMUKdRm1dBz/09NOSFUNvuCtjM0nQ2VTfVlu0NJVog
OGPxEBjhD5E9gquz1JrvtqWnLKZhW7369ryWSJQdHmzTF9RAYWCXmIdYRUVdoxae
Z/cJcU/VpmFjAHAxbq6J1ga6VQTaDicaJUpzuvCIKIadtfehmCxibdWfyHBzyDuf
VvjN7hc0WFgNE8GVWDvmpkQgvTq562vETN+tAZ/Rc1OQCC7m1bhLJae7ifI5ZnPb
SxYORyiwjywOTLseGewVqa7k2s7H40+oeLsrd5AnhDF+JX4Ifd4TxY/HlVBsVEgv
Uqc=
=XcAr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----